Talk:Namul Niram (Summon)
Summoning Any tips on how to summon this quick, I've setup five union with one union Emmy as leader while all of the other unions and units have there skill are disable except for Namul Niram. But still can't summon it I really need to record this to complete my special art collection.--Remnant13 02:23, June 27, 2011 (UTC) :Have you figured it out yet~? Zephyr 02:53, June 27, 2011 (UTC) ::What do you mean about that.--Remnant13 03:11, June 27, 2011 (UTC) :::It's the same conditions as summoning Cyclops and Lob Omen. To make things easier, it seems that the further up the list her union is, the higher priority. You probably already know that she needs to be out of deadlock as well. Ah whatever. I recorded it on a whim not too long ago, so I just uploaded mine. Zephyr 03:14, June 27, 2011 (UTC) :::Hey I just got it lucky me, I know about the outside the deadlock thing!--Remnant13 03:25, June 27, 2011 (UTC) ::::I just loaded up one of my test files, stuck a few random units and Emmy into unions, and got it within either the first turn, or a few. It really shouldn't be that hard to force her to summon. Even easier if you pick fights with something that doesn't multi-deadlock. Zephyr 03:43, June 27, 2011 (UTC) :::::Can you tell me what program did you use recording Namul Niram.--Remnant13 04:00, June 27, 2011 (UTC) ::::::FRAPS, like practically every other PC player would. I probably should have chosen a different codec. Colours seem kinda muted. Zephyr 04:04, June 27, 2011 (UTC) :::::::Figured as much, FRAPS is really simple and easy, I got to admit the color is a little bit faded but good quality. How exactly did you record this in full quality without making the file huge.--Remnant13 04:10, June 27, 2011 (UTC) ::::::::The raw file was huge. 813MB for those 15 seconds because I wanted it at 60fps. Just that I'm not really concerned with space limitations because I have about 1.5TB worth of space on one of my slave drives, and another 1.0TB on another. After encoding it with h.264, it was reduced to about 17MB. Zephyr 04:20, June 27, 2011 (UTC) :::::::::Wow! 813MB to just 16MB with little quality loss. Try using DivX its cheap but with better features--Remnant13 04:23, June 27, 2011 (UTC) ::::::::::There's not much of a difference between h.264 and DivX. I tend to go with the h.264 encoding because of the amount of compression I can get from it in exchange for a slightly higher quality loss. Most people wouldn't notice anyways. Zephyr 05:55, June 27, 2011 (UTC) :::::::::::Not me, I have a keen eye in quality checking and I know whats the difference.--Remnant13 11:36, June 27, 2011 (UTC) ::::::::::::I can see the difference too, but once it's up on Youtube, the quality further degrades to the point that it's basically a non-issue. The general population wouldn't be able to tell unless you told them. So, non-issue. Plus, higher compression also means faster upload. Considering that I have to share my connection with 3 others at home and my ISP's speed is pretty wonky at all times, a smaller relatively high quality file is a better upload option. I still keep the raws around if I want to re-encode to something different. And I've been training my eyes lately with archery to see finer details from quite the distance. Was quite surprised that I could even see a near perfect bullseye at 30m... Zephyr 15:19, June 27, 2011 (UTC)